Welcome, Travelers, to the Statements and Quotes lane on the Black Information Highway and The Mid-South Tribune ONLINE...Welcome, Travelers, to the 21st Century Underground Railroad...Subscribe FREE today to the BIHMST Channel on YouTube...

When
President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. would pull out of
Afghanistan in 2016, I did not so much think that he had given a
timetable to the terrorists (which he did) as some have argued but
rather that he had inadvertently given one to Vladimir Putin.

Now
Czar Putin knows that he has roughly two years to take control of
all of Ukraine under the guise of a civil war as he awaits for a new
American president (an unknown entity) while taking full advantage
of America fighting two wars simultaneously. And as of this
writing, the group ISIS seems to be gaining ground in Iraq and that,
too, adds to America’s preoccupation. Putin more than likely will
never have this perfect storm opportunity again to climb back onto
that Balance of Power scale where theSoviet Union once stood
in the era of Nikita Khrushchev. Putin wants this; he wants Russia
to return as a player on the international game board. And from the
looks of it, he is enjoying toying with President Obama knowing that
he doesn’t have to play chess or checkers when he’s dealing with an
opponent who is playing jacks. He’s had Obama standing at podiums
announcing that he and Putin are speaking via phone, discussing, and
all the other pronouncements that talks with Putin were moving
towards some meaningful resolve to the Ukrainian crisis only to end
up as one-sided conversations.

On May 28, 2014
when President Obama gave his commencement speech to the graduates
of West Point Academy, I listened to him not so much as his being
the president of the ‘Number One Nation’ in the world but as his
being a commander-in-chief of the ‘Number One Nation’ in the world.
I am sure Czar Putin was listening, too, along with terrorist groups
ranging from the sophisticated ones who know the primer of chemical
warfare and guerilla tactics to the ragtag ones who get their kicks
from kidnapping defenseless little girls. Both sectors want to take
down the Number One Nation mainly for no other reason than just to
say they took out the Number One Nation. By its very nature being
Number One invites challenges. That type of warfare mindset goes
back all the way to ancient times and not much has changed in a 21st
Century. There will always be those who ‘want to rule the world’
and that forces war and change.

All
roads at one time led to Rome and once upon a time the sun never set
on the British Empire.

What was monumental
in the president’s speech as the commander-in-chief was his making a
demarcation that the U.S.A. will not continue to act as a savior to
nations that find themselves in conflict and running to the U.S.A.
for help. Ironically, this is what is happening now with Iraq which
now wants the U.S.A.’s help in putting down the group ISIS which is
said to be more aggressive than Al Qaeda.

Of
course, when the U.S.A. stays beyond that help, it is run out of
town on a rail; thus, incurring the tag ‘loser’ which this nation
has been labeled post World War II. Then, of course again, nations
are more prone to become saviors to secure their own interests when
it’s about oil and other natural resources than they are when it’s
about humanitarian reasons. Historically, powerful nations have the
propensity to put in place the weakest of leadership they know they
can control; thus, such situations as ISIS moving into Iraq should
have been expected because ISIS knows, too, the leaders put in place
in the name of democracy are essentially rabbits and will run at the
first sign of a scuffle (I haven’t the space to expound on this but
will do so in a later article).

I agree with Obama
that this nation must send the message that it is not the world’s
savior. However, in foreign policy, even though the average citizen
doesn’t want to think about foreign policy to begin with, perception
is a quasi-living being. At the West Point commencement, he sent
this message with a posture of weakness, and somewhere Theodore
Roosevelt’s “Speak softly and carry a Big Stick” posture was lost
in Obama’s highly anticipated speech to set his “vision” for
America’s foreign policy.

He
began strongly: “Today, according to self-described realists,
conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are
not ours to solve. And not surprisingly, after costly wars and
continuing challenges here at home, that view is shared by many
Americans. A different view from interventionists from the left and
right says that we ignore these conflicts at our own peril; that
America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the
ultimate safeguard against chaos, and America’s failure to act in
the face of Syrian brutality or Russian provocations not only
violates our conscience, but invites escalating aggression in the
future. And each side can point to history to support its claims.
But I believe neither view fully speaks to the demands of this
moment. It is absolutely true that in the 21st century American
isolationism is not an option. We don’t have a choice to ignore
what happens beyond our borders…”

After
the president began with this strong statement that the nation would
no longer engage itself in every (or every other) conflict, he
dragged his speech into what I thought was one for goldfish to swim
in. The fish were pretty but they really weren’t going anywhere.

The
speech became so intellectualized that it was sanitized. It gave
little reference to the Russo-Ukraine conflict other than the
Ukrainian citizens had voted for a new president and a few other
mild mannered sentences.

There
was no force or fire which would have stressed his vision that
America’s new stance did not mean that the world and/or terrorists
should take its kindness for weakness.

The
speech dragged on in such an unconvincing tone that West Pointers
seemed about as disinterested as Obama himself in the speech. He
even went into global warming so I can only view that if the sun
went out that would end all wars anyway. This speech created a
‘disconnect’ between himself as commander-in-chief and those under
his command. There was nil applause where he obviously wanted more
enthusiasm. Sure, he made reference to Dwight D. Eisenhower,
stating: “As General Eisenhower, someone with hard-earned knowledge
on this subject, said at this ceremony in 1947: ‘War is mankind’s
most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate
provocation is a black crime against all men.’ Like Eisenhower, this
generation of men and women in uniform know all too well the wages
of war, and that includes those of you here at West Point…”

What Obama failed
to mention is that Eisenhower was a realist. I would venture to say
that Eisenhower as most people didn’t want war or liked war, but
there are in fact people who do like war and people who want war and
people who have no problem in engaging in war. How hard is that to
figure out? Eisenhower was a manager of warfare, a strategist in
warfare. Had America gone to war after he had become president, you
can bet your bottom dollar Eisenhower would have behaved as a true
commander-in-chief. Allies or not, Khrushchev would not have tested
Eisenhower as he did Kennedy. Kennedy stood up and Khrushchev backed
down; thus, mutual respect and maybe even mutual fear set the
agenda. Yes, Eisenhower had met enough tests in World War II.
Kennedy served in World War II and knew war up close and personal
having been wounded in it. The point being made here is that neither
presidents wanted war but they found themselves engaged in war and
stepped up to the plate either on the battlefield or from the Oval
Office.

Obama is such an
elitist, such an intellectual, that he seemingly thinks he can
continually sit down and talk and talk to the enemy and make them
see reason because underneath his own reasoning is that he has the
upper hand because he is the suave sophisticated intellectual who
prides himself on being so above the fray that he doesn’t recognize
the fray. To make matters worse, he views (or rather gives the
impression) those whom he is trying to make see reason as
essentially having no intelligence. This is not an administration
which seeks out those with different opinions or those with
expertise; this is an administration which seeks heaven on earth. It
is an administration that seemingly thinks the likes of a Sen. John
McCain or those in his ilk are so Vietnam-centric and hawk-driven
that they are relics in a 21st Century. When in fact
McCain is a realist who does not love war, but knows there can be
war. Furthermore, he knows you damn well better win the war or there
will be hell to pay in trying to attain heaven. One cannot give out
timetables and have nothing to back it except goodwill and smiles.
ISIS loved the goodwill and smiles and more than likely loved
Obama’s pretty little speech before the nation’s most esteemed
warriors. These groups, too, are warriors. They thrive on war. And
their perception of a leader is their truth. And to reiterate,
perception in international relations is a quasi-living being.

Ironically, Obama’s viewpoint and estranged philosophy is no more
than the extreme left version of why America’s foreign policy fails
just as it does with the extreme right version. Why? Because both
versions reside in an archaic Western/Euro-centric thinking that the
‘natives’ can be controlled, never realizing that the ‘natives’ can
think, too. The natives epitomized as the Third World/Developing
Nations and/or the terrorist groups from those with a sophisticated
technological network to the rag tag terrorist groups that kidnap
little girls now perceive America’s commander- in-chief as weak.

And to be politically
incorrect, let me mention the elephant in the room because he’s
sitting right there: Unfortunately, Black males in America are
already perceived as ‘weak’ post King and Malcolm X. For the record,
I did not say they were ‘weak’ but perceived as weak. Whoever
becomes the first female president will have this same problem to
deal with. This is a world perception of the Black American male and
of females regardless of female’s race, color or creed. Any woman
who aspires to achieve can attest to the latter. Mandela, an African
male leader would not have been tested as would have an African
American male head of state. Moving on.

Putin
certainly sees Obama as weak; he toys with him while the ‘natives’
are sitting in the balcony eating popcorn watching these two world
leaders duke it out. And they are rooting for Putin in that ‘the
enemy of my enemy is my friend’. They may not like him, but they
respect him because he comes off as strong by telling Obama to go to
hell in so many words and gestures.

America’s foreign
policy remains common-sense challenged, because the foreign policy
makers have yet to learn – from left to right—that when weak and
controllable persons are propped up as ‘presidents’ of newly formed
democracies (e.g. South Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) they will
be easily toppled when America pulls out, especially when a
‘specific’ timetable is given. You don’t put the cats in charge and
not expect the dogs to come in.

And
getting back to the man of the hour, Putin: He picked up on Obama’s
naiveté when Obama threatened sanctions on him and his inner circle
of plutocrats. They were no doubt filing their fingernails as Obama
gave them weeks upon weeks notice that he was going to put sanctions
on Russia’s billionaires. If you were a Russian billionaire, would
you not move your funds and secure your funds seeing that you got
weeks of advance notice that someone was coming after your money?
How dumb was that? That was so dumb that I am sure the Russian
plutocrats and Putin (one of the richest men in the world) are
munching on caviar and vodka resting their feet on gold bars while
managing to see secure international bankers who had no problem
accommodating them for the right price. Putting sanctions on Russia
has made Putin more popular to Russians who view this act with the
same indignation as Americans who would behave the same way were
sanctions put on the U.S.A. Like it or not: Russia is Russia and to
have put sanctions on it is also in the same vein as putting
sanctions on Great Britain or France. As a matter of fact, one does
not see Great Britain or France or Germany—our allies—chomping at
the bit to really punish Putin. They need Russian pipelines and if
the truth be told, they are sick and tired of engaging in America’s
wars where there are no exit strategies or as in Obama’s case, no
common sense of any consequence of what can happen once you pull
out.

Then
the Czar has stood before the world and announced that he wants
America to get the hell off the International Space Station by 2020
and that Russia will no longer be NASA’s BFF. Of course, he can
smile and tell this president anything and could very well kick NASA
out before 2020. As I said before, Putin thrives on
underestimation. Coupled with all this is the waltz Putin has
orchestrated in Ukraine by bringing his troops two steps inside
Ukraine and taking one step back as his ski-mask wearing agitators
work their way inside Ukraine’s belly to provoke civil war while he
cuts off Ukraine’s utilities. To reiterate, he probably now has a
two-year plan to pull off a ‘civil war’ victory—physically and
symbolically.

Yes, Putin is making
all of these overt moves before 2016, because he knows he’s dealing
with a president who wears rose-colored glasses.

As
I’ve written: Czar Putin is a bastard but a brilliant bastard. He
continually makes a fool of Obama each time Obama picks up the phone
thinking Putin is going to see reason. Seemingly Obama actually
believes he can talk the Czar into seeing reason. Seemingly he
actually believes he is the more intellectual of the two and that
somehow intellectualism will win out. Putin laughs and instead runs
to the U.N. demanding that the U.N. should make Ukraine cease fire
immediately. He paints Ukraine as the aggressor, knowing no one
believes it, but it makes a mockery of the Obama.

At
the end of the day Putin would have positioned himself to go into
Syria, Iran or anywhere else that is anti-American or anti-American
inclined and set up his own NATO-like organization to reincarnate
the Warsaw Pact. So what will we have here? A New Axis? Already he
is more welcomed in these places because he stood up to the U.S.
sanctions. If he takes all of Ukraine under the guise of a civil
war, he can send his own envoys in to dialogue with practically
every terrorist group from the sophisticated (such as ISIS) to the
ragtag ones at some point in time.

What should the
U.S. do now? Certainly not boots on the ground because that’s
embracing the conventional for the unconventional. What has to
happen is for newly-elected Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko
(with all his billions and contacts) to bring in his own mercenaries
and soldiers under that same guise of civil war as Putin has done.
Poroshenko needs to play the same mind games as Putin. Such as when
Putin went to the U.N. to demand that Ukraine cease fire; Poroshenko
needs to go to the U.N. and to make worse accusations against
Russia. In other words, Ukraine needs to be ready to win its ‘civil
war’ and play chess. The U.S. needs to be even more open about
supporting Ukraine’s efforts and then clandestinely aid and abet
Ukraine to provide weaponry to Poroshenko’s ‘loyal’ mercenaries who
should be expert in guerilla warfare. Furthermore, Polish troops
also should go in clandestinely in with their ski masks, and other
troops from nations that feel themselves threatened should Russia
revert to re-gathering Cold War territories.

Yes, one can
certainly see the role of “Captain Phillips” being recast. Putin is
now simply saying to Obama: “Look at me. Look at me. I am the
Captain now.” Getting Crimea was good; getting all of Ukraine would
be even better in re-establishing Russia on the Balance of Power.

Bottom line: Ukraine
has to win the ‘civil war’ because it is the ‘civil war’ which is
the real war, and the U.S. has to at least look like it has backed a
winner for a change.